[Jaspersharpe]

I don't pretend to be the best informed person in the World (and I'm becoming less and less interested in what the mainstream media have to say about anything as they are increasingly full shit) but I really feel that what's going on in Afghanistan is getting beyond a joke. I don't for one second believe the shite that Brown & Co keep trotting out about confronting terrorism and making Britain a safer place. All we seem to be achieving on that front is pissing a lot of people off and encouraging them towards more radical viewpoints. In fact that's all we've achieved since invading Iraq and Afghanistan (see 7/7). So what's it really all about?

The way I see it there are two options.

1: There is a hidden agenda (something to do with energy probably) which the government and the other political parties know all about but are certainly not going to let us in on. Because of this, they truly believe that this war is worth fighting despite the fact that it is becoming increasingly obvious that we can't win it (this was of course obvious from day one but now even the average Sun reader is having doubts).

2: What was supposed to be a swift rebuilding operation after the US had wiped out the Taliban with their cave bombs has become something completely different and not what the government were expecting at all. Instead of admitting this, the mission is changed every few months (rebuilding, preventing opium production (HA HA!), wiping out a few "insurgents", winning "hearts & minds" and er...having a full scale war with an ever growing army of Taliban fighters) and more and more soldiers and money are pumped into the country in a desperate attempt to save face. The politicians know that the war probably can't be won but how can they do such an about face now that they have spent so much time and effort trying to convince us that it is vital for our own security?

I don't know which one it is but I can't work out another scenario that fits the bill and if either of the above is true then it's a fucking disgraceful situation that we're in.

Anyway, what does everyone reckon? Am I way off the mark and if so what do you think is really going on? I know there are lot of people on here who know a lot more than I do and I'd be interested to know your opinions.

 

To me this Gerald Scarfe offering sums things up:

[Jaspersharpe]

Oh and this was going to be a post asking if anyone knows a good carpet fitter but the Mrs has found one and I got sidetracked.....

[slackline]

1: There is a hidden agenda (something to do with energy probably) which the government and the other political parties know all about but are certainly not going to let us in on. Because of this, they truly believe that this war is worth fighting despite the fact that it is becoming increasingly obvious that we can't win it (this was of course obvious from day one but now even the average Sun reader is having doubts).

2: What was supposed to be a swift rebuilding operation after the US had wiped out the Taliban with their cave bombs has become something completely different and not what the government were expecting at all. Instead of admitting this, the mission is changed every few months (rebuilding, preventing opium production (HA HA!), wiping out a few "insurgents", winning "hearts & minds" and er...having a full scale war with an ever growing army of Taliban fighters) and more and more soldiers and money are pumped into the country in a desperate attempt to save face. The politicians know that the war probably can't be won but how can they do such an about face now that they have spent so much time and effort trying to convince us that it is vital for our own security?

Its the "War on Drugs" (.."that people on drugs seem to be winning, hahahaha" circa Bill Hicks sketch)

[dave]

I think ones of the problems these days is that people still entertain the old fashioned notion of a war being either "won" or "lost" like its a sport, and all the protagonists being back home for tea and medals. the world doesn't work like that, especially not on wars which are not nation against nation. Things aren't as clear cut as the falklands war anymore. I don't pretend to know what is really going on in afghanistan, but I know what we see in the media isn't the half of it. A few years ago when iraq was getting all the coverage there was still the same shit going on if afghanistan, except it was too dangerous to actually send journalists there, hence it went largely undocumented in the press. I have a mate in the army who has faught there a few times, and the stories could tell you about the shit he's seen are terrible. Most of us won't have to go to work day in day out and have collegues killed in front of us.

P.S. I can't remember who fitted out carpets.

[Bubba]

1: There is a hidden agenda (something to do with energy probably)

Afghanistan is strategically highly important in both military and energy terms. I suspect the fact that Pakistan is slowly becoming a failed state is bucking up the need for a stronghold in the region as well. Let's not forget Pakistan is nuclear. The energy potential of the region runs into trillions of dollars.

I don't see how the arguments for confronting terrorists hold any water - if they can't group/train in Afghanistan/Pakistan then they will move to places like Somalia (where already there are shit loads of taliban fighters fighting the government) - what will Nato do then? Start a war in Somalia? (oh wait, the US already tried that )

The drugs aspect does hold up to an extent - most UK heroin originates in Afghanistan but nothing will change there until the country can provide farmers with a better way to make a living.

[Bobling]

I think to find out what we are up to in Afghanistan you could ask the Russians what their aims were when they were there a couple of decades ago.

I was speaking to a friend who is currently in the Army about it and on the whole he was pretty positive that we are achieving 'good things', but then again who wants to go to work and risk one's life everyday without believing it is for a reason?

The parrallels with Vietnam grow - helicopters used to transport people as overland is not secure enough (though they had enough in Vietnam and it didn't win that war), taking ground and not holding it, booby traps/mines causing casualties, overwhelming tactical superiority that doesn't seem to translate into strategic success.

I have to say that I feel we should just get out but I can not see that happening having comitted so much in blood and money, there's billions more pounds and many more casualties to come I am afraid.

You can do something concrete to help though: www.helpforheroes.org.uk - for those who come back with 'life changing' injuries.

[Jaspersharpe]

I have a mate in the army who has faught there a few times, and the stories could tell you about the shit he's seen are terrible. Most of us won't have to go to work day in day out and have collegues killed in front of us.

Word I spoke to a guy who has a son in the marines who said that once you've been out there a few weeks you realise how futile the whole thing is. If the blokes on the front line can't see the point in the operations they are carrying out and can see that they aren't achieving anything then the whole thing is fucked.

I think to find out what we are up to in Afghanistan you could ask the Russians what their aims were when they were there a couple of decades ago.

The parrallels with Vietnam grow

And again we learn nothing from history?

[butters]

Interesting points there Bubba especially with regard to the nuclear situation.

There was suggestions that the real reason to invade Afghanistan was to build a huge pipeline up to the Caspian Sea to provide another way of getting oil out of the area but this the instability in the area sees to have knocked that idea on the head at least for now.

[superfurrymonkey]

Why are we in Afghanistan?
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=74&jumival=341
The Real News Cafe: Recorded live at the Gladstone in Toronto, a Real News panel takes on the Afghan war.

[Bubba]

And again we learn nothing from history?

Well, no we don't appear to:

http://www.afghanland.com/history/anglo1.html

http://www.afghanland.com/history/anglo2.html

[Jaspersharpe]

True.

From the British point of view, the First Anglo-Afghan War (1838-42) (often called "Auckland's Folly") was an unmitigated disaster, despite the ease with which Dost Mohammad was deposed and Shuja enthroned.

 

[moose]

Aye, I've heard the Caspian Sea pipeline reasoning too - a possible means of bypassing an increasingly beligerent Russia?  Re heroin, although the Afghans produced ~90% of the World's heroin that seems to to be a recent, revisionist answer.  Under the Taliban production had fallen to a trickle and is now almost back to full capacity (besides, pretty much all that that heroin was reaching us via Turkey - and we're inviting them to join the EU rather than bombing them). 

To be honest I suspect that the reasons we went in are largely those stated at the outset - the Taliban were providing a safe-haven for terrorists who planned 9/11 amongst other things.  Let's not forget the invasion was backed by the UN - unlike that of Iraq.  The problem now is that we are in too deep to withdraw.  Achieving a stable, democratic Afghanistan is a pipedream, but if we leave now there will be an absolute bloodbath - every Afghan suspected of having helped the coalition forces in the smallest way could be slaughtered and we would have that to answer for.  Hell, anyone who attended a school or made any use of the facilities built by the western forces will be endangered.  That's not to mention the deterioration of the Pakistan situation.  They were initially keen to help because of the massive amounts of money being channeled in from the US, and that they've always valued the tribal border areas as a potential "strategic space" to use in a conflict with India.  But now it's just looking like they've bitten off more than they can chew - Pakistan rather than stabilising it's borders looks weak. 

In short, my own interpretation is that it's a clusterfuck.  What is it Napoleon said: "nover ascribe to conspiracy what can be explained by incompetance".

[lagerstarfish]

After fcuking up Iran's earlier attempt at democracy, the least we can try to do is reduce the massive amounts of Afghan opium which is taking it's toll on their population (huge heroin problem)...

...what's that? The Northern Alliance and others need the money from the sale of opium to fight the Taliban?

What a mess 

[sammo]

For what it’s worth I agree with Moose: the current fuck-up is largely due to incompetence and we’ve created a situation from which it’s virtually impossible to withdraw.

As a slight aside (and if you haven’t seen them already) I really recommend watching the three part documentary series entitled The Power of Nightmares by Adam Curtis. They’re not specific to Afghanistan, but they do give a very interesting perspective on the current conflict by charting parallels in the development of radical Islamism and radical Neo-Conservatism over the past 60 years or so. Obviously this focuses quite a lot on Afghanistan, Iraq etc.

The series concentrates mainly on the United States, but much of the more recent stuff seems equally applicable to the UK, essentially documenting the rise of a new political ideology in which ‘the people’ are united against a clearly defined enemy.

Anyway, if you’re interested:

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3

[fatkid2000]

Pakistan is currently a weak nation - it can't control the city areas let alone the tribal areas in the Afghan region. The worry the west has is that Pakistan's nuclear capability gets into the wrong hands. So its either that or there is a shit load of oil in the region and the powers that be want to bypass Russia.

[Sloper]

The Russians were there primarily to cement their strategic partnership with Pakistan as India was becoming more closely allied with china and to, in the long term allow pipelines from the CAR to warm weather ports.

Pakistan has never been a functioning state and Pakistan only qualifies on several of a few key indicators, largely the single currency and military unity.

sadly I think we're there because Uncle Sam lashed out in blind rage and we had to hold onto his coat tails.  This will be our fourth Afghan war and we've lost the last three due to the same old problems:

Hard ground
Long resupply lines
It's a large territory and virtually impossible to hold once taken.
An absence of civil society 'structures' to support and maintain.
External influence.

Imagine how many soliders it would take to control lines of communication, roads, paths etc in Derbyshire, now think how many soldiers it would take to support those soldiers, add in the number of soldiers who would be needed to guard the support team, bonus question, what about R&R, rotation and replacing killed and injured.

Now have a quick look at the size of southern afghanistan and that we're expecting afghan troops less well trained and equipped than Dad's Army to step into the breach on a ratio of 1 UK HMF to 20 Afghan troops and you'll see we're onto a hiding to nothing.

My 1st career choice was Infantry Officer (disintegrating knees put paid to that) and from what I can recall of the training that I did enjoy we're fucked in spades.  The only hope is to convene a few local Jurgas and say to the head man, we'll buy all your poppy at a really decent price, provide clean, water, electricity a school, hospital etc all you have to do is join us and f--k the taliban.

If you're fighting on their ground get then on your side or you lose.

[superfurrymonkey]

Pretty much what the panel was saying on the realnews debate regarding supply lines Sloper it was also alleged that 70% of Taliban fighters are only in it for the money, the Taliban are loaded at the moment from opium sales and have been trying to buy stinger missiles to try and disrupt the air corridor.

[Houdini]

And the beauty is:  it doesn't matter who you vote for - both sides of the political spectrum will send us to war, in one place or the other 

And people ask me why I don't vote ...

[lagerstarfish]

the Taliban are loaded at the moment from opium sales

If this is true, then we need to ditch our so called allies in the north of the country and put our efforts into supporting Iran and Pakistan in strengthening their borders/security.

This should have the secondary effect of reducing the chances of the Taliban getting hold of nuclear weapons 

[dave]

The only hope is to convene a few local Jurgas and say to the head man, we'll buy all your poppy at a really decent price, provide clean, water, electricity a school, hospital etc all you have to do is join us and f--k the taliban.

from what i gathered from my mate, the locals are basically extremely distrustful of everyone, having been shat on by the west, the soviets, the mujahadeen/taliban for decades, so getting any kind of lasting loyalty is rare - you have to be willing to give them more money/food/aid/supplies/arms (delete as applicable) than the other side, and for as long as you need that alliance to last.

[lagerstarfish]

getting any kind of lasting loyalty is rare - you have to be willing to give them more money/food/aid/supplies/arms (delete as applicable) than the other side, and for as long as you need that alliance to last.

just like the rest of us

[Control freak]

Im pretty sure it all revolves around heroin and the economics surrounding it. Very little in fact on a crackdown on global terrorism

[Bubba]

Or is it this?

[Jaspersharpe]

Nice to see that the regime we're supporting with the lives of our soldiers is so progressive though isn't it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/14/afghanistan-womens-rights-rape

[Jaspersharpe]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/18/drugs-arms-trade-afghanistan